The computer scientist regarded as the “godfather of artificial intelligence” says the government will have to establish a universal basic income to deal with the impact of AI on inequality.
Professor Geoffrey Hinton told BBC Newsnight that a benefits reform giving fixed amounts of cash to every citizen would be needed because he was “very worried about AI taking lots of mundane jobs”.
this territory is moderated
reply
129 sats \ 7 replies \ @jgbtc 19 May
It's so stupid. If that worked we could have done it at any time. Mundane jobs have always existed, and technologic innovations always make them obsolete, and make a whole new generation of mundane jobs. This is basically the whole story of human civilization.
reply
21 sats \ 3 replies \ @gmd 19 May
Happening a lot faster now over a much shorter time scale. Most new jobs created will also very quickly be better done by AI. Intelligence is being commoditized rapidly and the value of the human brainpower will rapidly deflate.
reply
54 sats \ 2 replies \ @jgbtc 19 May
What matters is if it will work or not. Money is needed because of scarcity. Whatever AI makes abundant will be freely available. No money needed. Whatever is still scarce, because AI can't pronounce it, will be so valuable that no one will voluntarily trade it for something the government just hands out for free. In the absence of voluntary trade, forced redistribution will be used. No money needed.
reply
In the absence of voluntary trade, forced redistribution will be used. No money needed.
I'm not arguing that this won't happen, but I have yet to see a coherent argument for how forced redistribution is ever more economically efficient than market forces.
The flip side of your argument is that anything a person can do better than AI will fetch an enormous wage in terms of purchasing power.
reply
75 sats \ 0 replies \ @jgbtc 19 May
I agree with both points. Forced redistribution is always a complete disaster, which is why UBI won't work. It's forced redistribution in disguise. But the use of money in that situation is a quaint bit of theater to make people think everything is normal. To your second point, the purchasing power will be far too enormous for any UBI trash they hand out.
reply
Image having to be a full time captcha tester...
reply
Oof. I would hope that could be gig work.
reply
reply
111 sats \ 1 reply \ @orthwyrm 19 May
deleted by author
reply
I think UBI is very interesting from an economic analysis standpoint, but saying it will be necessary is nonsense on stilts.
If he had said "AI might make a UBI feasible.", then I'd have a different reaction.
reply
Considering how much we spend on “entitlements”/“welfare” as it is I am interested in changing the system into something more sustainable.
It seems difficult to make the basic math work on UBI though. I’ve heard “negative income tax” is what people who understand economics call it.
reply
Isn't the point of it to replace all other welfare and entitlement systems? Everyone gets UBI and then the free market handles the rest, thus removing huge amounts of the state apparatus and its interference.
Can you propose what it should be like a basic Universal income if all work is done by AI in future?
reply
And how are they going to implement it. I don't think that governments want to even think about the seriousness of AI implications on humans. Once AI establishes itself in the world, we will be sentenced to strive for food as well.
Universal income is just not possible.
reply
yeah....UBI has been a big subject lately. Does it really work?
reply
How many sats should governments allocate for UBI?
reply